This research is intended to discuss the relevance of the application of presidential threshold and the implementation of simultaneous general elections in Indonesia. The concept of simultaneous general elections is the implementation of legislative and executive elections which are carried out simultaneously. The implementation of the first simultaneous general elections in Indonesia was motivated by a request for a judicial review of Law Number 42 Year 2008 concerning the Election of the President and Vice President. The Constitutional Court issued the Constitutional Court Decision Number 14/PUU-IX/2013 with the decision granting part of the request which later gave birth to the implementation of simultaneous elections in Indonesia starting in 2019. However, from the various articles that were reviewed, there was one article that was not decided by the Constitutional Court, namely regarding the presidential threshold. The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the regulation regarding the presidential threshold is an open legal policy for the legislature. This paper is a normative legal research, with conceptual approach and statute approach to find answers to existing problems. The research source used is secondary data consisting of primary legal materials and secondary legal materials as explanation for primary legal materials. From the results of this research, it was found that the simultaneous elections and the presidential threshold were not compatible. On the one hand, the presidential threshold aims to simplify the number of parties.

Article 175 of Law Number 11 of 2020 changes some of the government administration clauses that have been regulated in the regulation of governmental administration. These changes are related to positive verdicts of fictitious and requests as stipulated in Article 53 of the Law of Creating of Job which amends the clauses of Article 53 of the Government Administration Law. The time limit for establishing a positive fictitious decision has changed from 10 days to 5 days and there is no mechanism for an adjuration to the court of the state administrative to obtain a decision to accept the adjuration. The form of research used is normative juridical with qualitative analysis methods. The results of the study show that fictitious requests are considered legally granted in Article 53 paragraph (4) of Law of Creating of Job without a decision by a Court causing legal uncertainty and because the Law of Creating of Job is declared conditionally unconstitutional, it still refers to the Law Government Administration Act